$10 or 20 percent of hourly food sales - makes me wonder if waitstaff might be tempted to hurry one table along in order to seat the next family and sell them more food.

If this were an issue, it would already be one as servers are already dependent on selling a lot of food to make their money. Whether that comes from tips based on amount sold or wages based on amount sold wouldn't make any difference. It's still based on amount sold.

Not to say that it isn't already an issue. It may very well be and probably is in certain establishments. But I don't think this change would exacerbate the situation.

I think it sounds like a good idea. Whether or not it will spread is a different story.

The $10 is the part that makes it sticky. Because how that will compare to the 20% of sales, will totally depend on the food prices in the restaurant. If it's a high end place where dishes fall in the $30-$45 range, the 20% is easily going to top the $10. And for a restaurant where $10 might be on par with the 20%, is the restaurant going to raise the $10 base wage whenever they raise menu prices?

Why is it "sticky" and why would they need to adjust the base wage based on food prices? From the article (bolding mine):

Quote

Here’s how it works: servers are paid $10 an hour OR 20% of their individual food sales during their shifts–whichever amount is higher.

The servers get whichever pay system works out to more money for them. If food prices are high and business is good, they'll get paid 20% of their sales. If business is bad or food is really cheap, they'll get $10 an hour. Either way, their pay will be equal to or greater than a guaranteed 20% tip. The base wage only becomes relevant in situations where they wouldn't have been making more than $10 per hour in tips anyway (unless they're in an area where almost everyone consistently tips more than 20%, which I doubt), so raising it along with the menu prices seems like a minor issue--the higher the menu prices, the more likely that they'll be paid the 20% instead of the base wage.

It's sticky because as time goes on, the $10 will approach, in worth, the $2.13 (or whatever base now is) of today.

So, either the base of $10 has meaning or it doesn't. It's meant to be a minimum, so the servers will be guaranteed at least $10 per hour, whether or not the restaurant is busy, whether or not a server gets some low-ordering tables, etc. But as the $10 becomes worth less over time, it will just become like today's minimum wage which was set so many years ago.

So if the 20% is always going to come into play, then why bother invoking any minimum? But if there is actually a need to invoke a minimum, then that minimum needs to keep up with inflation.

It's sticky because as time goes on, the $10 will approach, in worth, the $2.13 (or whatever base now is) of today.

So, either the base of $10 has meaning or it doesn't. It's meant to be a minimum, so the servers will be guaranteed at least $10 per hour, whether or not the restaurant is busy, whether or not a server gets some low-ordering tables, etc. But as the $10 becomes worth less over time, it will just become like today's minimum wage which was set so many years ago.

So if the 20% is always going to come into play, then why bother invoking any minimum? But if there is actually a need to invoke a minimum, then that minimum needs to keep up with inflation.

Because you might have a day where most of your tables camp with just tomato soup and water and 20% of that is not going to be $10 and hour. But I see the "when prices are raised will their wages be raised" as the same as those of us who aren't waiters. Just because my company made a lot of money this year doesn't mean I will get a raise. Minimum wage hasn't changed for years. I would assume this restaurant will keep their fingers on the pulse of the business and raise that minimum if they need to.

So, wages shouldn't improve now because inflation will eventually catch up?

No, the exact opposite. Wages should not stagnate because if they do, inflation will catch up.The $10 needs to improve over time. That's all I'm saying. And I've seen the opposite happen. $10 minimum sounds good now, but if it never changes, it's not very good at all.

So, wages shouldn't improve now because inflation will eventually catch up?

No, the exact opposite. Wages should not stagnate because if they do, inflation will catch up.The $10 needs to improve over time. That's all I'm saying. And I've seen the opposite happen. $10 minimum sounds good now, but if it never changes, it's not very good at all.

Ah, okay I think I get what you're saying. I think I was reading that you were saying that it shouldn't be done because $10 will eventually be nothing. But, what you're saying is that $10 is good for now, but market wages should be met?

It's sticky because as time goes on, the $10 will approach, in worth, the $2.13 (or whatever base now is) of today.

So, either the base of $10 has meaning or it doesn't. It's meant to be a minimum, so the servers will be guaranteed at least $10 per hour, whether or not the restaurant is busy, whether or not a server gets some low-ordering tables, etc. But as the $10 becomes worth less over time, it will just become like today's minimum wage which was set so many years ago.

So if the 20% is always going to come into play, then why bother invoking any minimum? But if there is actually a need to invoke a minimum, then that minimum needs to keep up with inflation.

Because you might have a day where most of your tables camp with just tomato soup and water and 20% of that is not going to be $10 and hour. But I see the "when prices are raised will their wages be raised" as the same as those of us who aren't waiters. Just because my company made a lot of money this year doesn't mean I will get a raise. Minimum wage hasn't changed for years. I would assume this restaurant will keep their fingers on the pulse of the business and raise that minimum if they need to.

An assumption, yes. If they do, great! If they don't, well, all I'm saying is that they need to. I won't assume they will, though, based on experience. And you've voiced one of the main reasons why I won't assume they will: "Minimum wage hasn't changed for years."

So, wages shouldn't improve now because inflation will eventually catch up?

No, the exact opposite. Wages should not stagnate because if they do, inflation will catch up.The $10 needs to improve over time. That's all I'm saying. And I've seen the opposite happen. $10 minimum sounds good now, but if it never changes, it's not very good at all.

Ah, okay I think I get what you're saying. I think I was reading that you were saying that it shouldn't be done because $10 will eventually be nothing. But, what you're saying is that $10 is good for now, but market wages should be met?

Right.And in addition, I'm saying, I would be surprised if they do actually continually improve the $10 to meet market wages. Not saying it won't happen. Just saying it doesn't usually happen unless it somehow gets legislated.

So, wages shouldn't improve now because inflation will eventually catch up?

No, the exact opposite. Wages should not stagnate because if they do, inflation will catch up.The $10 needs to improve over time. That's all I'm saying. And I've seen the opposite happen. $10 minimum sounds good now, but if it never changes, it's not very good at all.

Ah, okay I think I get what you're saying. I think I was reading that you were saying that it shouldn't be done because $10 will eventually be nothing. But, what you're saying is that $10 is good for now, but market wages should be met?

Right.And in addition, I'm saying, I would be surprised if they do actually continually improve the $10 to meet market wages. Not saying it won't happen. Just saying it doesn't usually happen unless it somehow gets legislated.

Well, simply by offering this $10 or 20% wage standard, this restaurant is showing that they are willing to move beyond the status quo to the benefit of their employees.

My original post was meant to point out that while $10 might be the right minimum for that restaurant for today, it won't be tomorrow.

But in addition to that, it wouldn't be the right minimum, even today, for every restaurant. Some restaurants, it might be too high and they'll just hit that $10 every time, which would be great for the servers but might break the budget for the restaurant. In some places, it's going to be too low and they'll never hit that $10, even on a bad day. And maybe in some places 20% might be too low if their regular clientele normally tips higher than that.

My point is that it sounds like a great idea and those particular numbers might work for that particular eatery. But if it were going to be something implemented across the board for a lot of restaurants, those two numbers might need to be tailored for each place and adjusted periodically.

So, wages shouldn't improve now because inflation will eventually catch up?

No, the exact opposite. Wages should not stagnate because if they do, inflation will catch up.The $10 needs to improve over time. That's all I'm saying. And I've seen the opposite happen. $10 minimum sounds good now, but if it never changes, it's not very good at all.

But that is true of anyone who receives a salary - the waiter, the bank teller, the secretary, etc.

My original post was meant to point out that while $10 might be the right minimum for that restaurant for today, it won't be tomorrow.

But in addition to that, it wouldn't be the right minimum, even today, for every restaurant. Some restaurants, it might be too high and they'll just hit that $10 every time, which would be great for the servers but might break the budget for the restaurant. In some places, it's going to be too low and they'll never hit that $10, even on a bad day. And maybe in some places 20% might be too low if their regular clientele normally tips higher than that.

My point is that it sounds like a great idea and those particular numbers might work for that particular eatery. But if it were going to be something implemented across the board for a lot of restaurants, those two numbers might need to be tailored for each place and adjusted periodically.

My original post was meant to point out that while $10 might be the right minimum for that restaurant for today, it won't be tomorrow.

But in addition to that, it wouldn't be the right minimum, even today, for every restaurant. Some restaurants, it might be too high and they'll just hit that $10 every time, which would be great for the servers but might break the budget for the restaurant. In some places, it's going to be too low and they'll never hit that $10, even on a bad day. And maybe in some places 20% might be too low if their regular clientele normally tips higher than that.

My point is that it sounds like a great idea and those particular numbers might work for that particular eatery. But if it were going to be something implemented across the board for a lot of restaurants, those two numbers might need to be tailored for each place and adjusted periodically.

How is that different from any other industry?

Exactly. It's not.But you know, it actually is. Because the restaurant is already different from other industries by the whole tipping culture. I get paid a salary. I know how much I'm going to make every month. I don't get more or less based on how much business my company does and how much my company's customers want to add to my salary by tipping me.

My company doesn't set a minimum for me that I will make if and only if the company's customers don't already meet and beat that minimum by giving me extra out of their own pockets.

Restaurants (and other businesses whose employees depend on tips) are inherently different from other industries for that reason. Should they be? Should we eliminate the tipping and go to a straight salary or some percentage of sales? Well, that's something we've been debating here for years and, I imagine, will continue to do so. I'd prefer to eliminate the tipping but I don't see it happening.

And I'll qualify all of this by saying, I'm a generous tipper and normally tip more than 20%.